Was Axl closer in 1992 or 2012

[PirateRadio]

We can agree that those two Axls don't sound anything like the recorded Axls right? I mean some say 1992 Axl was just awesome. We all know 2012 Axl sucked, yess even Philly. Sorry. And Axl 92, soooo scratchy. Just listen to the best shows, Oklahoma, Paris. Whoohh. But which is closer to sounding acceptable to the 1987-1991 recorded Axl?

[IncitingChaos]

I always liked the differences between album and concert with GNR. It was a part of what made their shows so amazing. You had a rawness and excitement live that was captured more in 92 than in 2012.

GNR is great because they never sounded like they were mimicking their album live or sounded like they were in a recording studio. They just put on one hell of a show every night they went out there and that's what made a true performance that was worth paying for.

Axl's voice was powerful live, and it helped capture the energy of the show. This is most evident in 92. The albums were clean, but equally amazing. I don't see anyone taking 2012 over 92 in this. 92 he still sounded close to the recording and yet brought it to another level.

[PirateRadio]

I always liked the differences between album and concert with GNR. It was a part of what made their shows so amazing. You had a rawness and excitement live that was captured more in 92 than in 2012.

GNR is great because they never sounded like they were mimicking their album live or sounded like they were in a recording studio. They just put on one hell of a show every night they went out there and that's what made a true performance that was worth paying for.

Axl's voice was powerful live, and it helped capture the energy of the show. This is most evident in 92. The albums were clean, but equally amazing. I don't see anyone taking 2012 over 92 in this. 92 he still sounded close to the recording and yet brought it to another level.

Of course everyone will choose 92 over 2012. The band was GNR vs. NuGNR. However, just concentrating on Axl's vocals, might not be so clear cut. The deeper part of this issue is that 92 live performance Axl would never record with that voice. 2012 live performance Axl basically has.

[magisme]

Neither is close to the recorded voice. Difference is, 92 voice was still pretty fuckin' cool. 2011-2014 voice is the worst.

[Padme]

We can agree that those two Axls don't sound anything like the recorded Axls right? I mean some say 1992 Axl was just awesome. We all know 2012 Axl sucked, yess even Philly. Sorry. And Axl 92, soooo scratchy. Just listen to the best shows, Oklahoma, Paris. Whoohh. But which is closer to sounding acceptable to the 1987-1991 recorded Axl?

We know Axl´s voice problems in recent years. But we don´t know the reason.His age could be part of the problem. But is it age only? Maybe it is something that with the right care and medication can be fixed. Or maybe it´s something that it will never be fixed 100%. So if Axl gets in a studio today and records vocals there is no way he could sound close to 92 nor 87, not even like in the CD recordings.

Besides in the AFD days they wanted the album to capture the rawness of the live shows. That changed with the UYI albums.

[OJones90]

I actually wasn't too fussed on his voice in Paris, Argentina etc.

2010 was probably my favourite year for Axl's vocals, and i liked 2006 (some performances were actually incredible tbh, especially Rock Am Ring) and the earlier days up until those Paris/Argentina gigs. I still liked his voice in those shows i guess, but not as much as other years.

His voice now is acceptable. I've been dissapointed he hasn't used much rasp, but people aren't giving him enough credit. It's amazing how he can still hit those notes. And the rasp is still there during some periods, so that's a sign he hasn't lost it or anything.

Edited March 22, 2014 by OJones90

[Brunzopolis]

In 1992, his voice still had power. That's all that matters. Was it different from how he sounds on recordings? I guess, maybe? Who cares? It still sounded great.

The fact that some people flat out state, or even consider the possibility, that he somehow, in any way, sounds better at any point post 2001 than he did pre-94 is completely ludicrous to me. Said people (not saying you OP) might have something wrong with their auditory circuitry. Serioulsy, his voice is completely different now. The issue isn't "he used to sing with rasp, and now he mostly sings in the 'Mickey' voice". Both sound shitty (in comparison) when there's no "ooomph" behind them.

This is best explanation I've ever come across on this board for why this is, and what happened (emphasis mine):

Axl's voice didn't "turn" into Mickey Mouse - he started using falsetto to hit the notes he used to hit with his "head voice", then eventually started to use it for the notes he used to hit with his chest voice as well. He changed the way he sings completely.... added more rasp (kind of like a screech) to that falsetto with time. If you don't believe me, try it yourself, it's easiest to get that screech rasp on the REALLY high notes when you're pushing out the most air - impossible when you're singing lower notes.

This is something I believe he's done because he damaged his vocal chords on the Illusion tours... nobody can sing like he did in 1993 and get away with it.

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/194453-was-axls-voice-turning-to-mickey-mouse-in-93/?p=3250093

[D-GenerationX]

I think his live voice from December 1991 until the end of that tour in July 1993 was awesome.

Of all my bootlegs, those are the ones I listen to the most. Summer 1991 had cool setlists, but he's really rough in spots. By that 8-3-91 show, he's shredded. But from the 12-5-91 show onwards, he sounds great.

Which...is why I find "he's better than ever!" talk these past 10 or so years to be a joke. A SCOM or YCBM from the time I'm talking about, versus ANY version from 2001 onwards isn't even close.

[IncitingChaos]

The difference is in 92 he could walk back into a studio and re-record his vocals for the album and still sound the same. In 2012 he would never be able to record vocals similar to 87-91

2012 is a ways off from the studio recordings.

[loko]

2006 was the best.

[D-GenerationX]

2006 was the best.

Yeah, best since his relaunch.

[tkarmy]

If Axl legitimately has vocal issues preventing him from using his trademark rasp he should just do a candid interview like Tom Keifer has done many times.

Fuck Tom had his vocal chord paralyized TWICE and worked his ass off hours a day to get his voice bad and sounds still sounds amazing.

I can't imagine what reason Axl has other than not practising EVER or taking his vocal duties very seriously any more.

After seeing them in 93, all the Hammerstein shows in 2006, 5 Canadian dates in 2010, and twice in 2011... I have to say what he is putting out now is embarrassing.

I was considering the vegas shows... but after these two I have no confidence anything is going to improve and I'm not dropping that kind of cash anymore.

If they come close I will always go see them but I'm no longer flying anywhere to see his current level of boredom and lacklusterness

Edited March 23, 2014 by tkarmy

[liers]

I think he chooses to conserve his voice.

Let's think for a second, axl likes touring. There is no possible way that screeching like he use to is good for his voice. I think it's possible he had to have surgery because of that in the late 90s and since then decided he doesn't want to go through that again. Maybe in 2006 and 2010, since we know he was depressed during those years, he decided he didn't give a fuck.

2006-2010 was probably the closest to studio recordings he's ever been. I don't mind his "mickey mouse" voice, so long as he has power. I actually liked his 2002 voice. The few seconds of Jackie Chan is a good example of how he can use his clean voice and still sound good, it just doesn't do too great on the old songs.

Edited March 23, 2014 by liers